Doing the right thing is hard, but important.

Now that Obama is President and the Dems have a majority in Congress many Democrats just want to pass some key legistlation and to keep the economy rolling so Obama will have another 4 years in office. Well sure, that would be nice. But what would a true LEADER do? Someone who is willing to do the right thing regardless of what it means for his or her political future. Someone who is willing to go after the Bush administration for war crimes even if it bogs down the process. If Eric Holder goes after Bush he will be critized by a lot of democrats. Many of the Bush diehards will aslo accuse him of playing politics when we have more important issues at hand. But if there were war crimes committed we have to investigate. If we don't we are hypocrits telling the Iraqies they need a democracy while not holding ourselves accountable for our own actions.

WE HAVE TO WALK THE TALK

...These are not just the philosophical musings of a new attorney general. Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

Sarah Palin

So the big news is that Sarah Palin is stepping down as Governor by the end of the month. The big question is:WHY?

My belief is that there is no big new controversy that is going to bring her down. There is no new Troopergate that will tarnish her perfect image.

No, I think she is going to go full throttle with a campaign for President in 2012. Three years of Sarah attacking Obama and Congress.

What is obscenity?

This weekend in Boulder is the 'naked bike ride' where a bunch of locals strip down and cruise around town on bikes to draw attention to our dependence on oil. 'More Ass, less gas' is one of their motto's. Unfortunately they have gotten more attention for their nakedness then their cause. There has been story after story about whether or not it is obscene or if they should be ticket as sex offenders for their actions. It is more than stupid. In my mind they have drawn attention away from their real cause by making an issue about whether or not they have the right to protest by riding bikes naked. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate their cause. We are dependant on oil and until everyone realizes this we cannot make any real progress in weening ourselves off of our drug. I guess riding naked is better than yelling at people in hummers, so at least their approach is passive.

What truly kills me is the right wing hate speech shows gets away with what I consider to be a worst crime than being naked in public. They spew hatred on the airwaves. As Frank Rich correctly points out the GOP is in desperate need of someone being moral integrity enough to halt the hate speech of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and the like. (This is a GREAT op-ed piece). Take this 'joke' as an example of what the Right wingers listen to: ....She cited a “joke” repeated by a Rush Limbaugh fill-in host, a talk-radio jock from Dallas of all places, about how “any U.S. soldier” who found himself with only two bullets in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden would use both shots to assassinate Pelosi and then strangle Reid and bin Laden.

Seriously police are following around half naked bikers because they are concerned about decency and we have talk show hosts joking about killing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? What is truly obscene is that the Rush heads don't even realize the hypocrisy of calling their enemies terrorists and then wanting to shoot people. Or shooting an abortion doctor.

Hopefully I was able to keep my hatred for Bush down to a civil dialogue. (I would hate to have been a hypocrite too). I thought (and still think) he should be tried as a murder, but I never suggested (like some of friends have) that he should be harmed in any way for his actions outside of a courtroom. He is a husband, a father and a son. Even putting him in prison for his actions is going to cause pain to the people that love him. Is it fair? Probably. But it is up to a jury and a judge to decide. Not me.

Fool me 3 times shame on... shame on trying.

There are WMDs.
We will be greeted as liberators.
Water boarding gives us important information.
If Cheney was Pinocio his nose would be a weapon of mass destruction.

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has come out and admitted Cheney's claims are false.

...WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, says former Vice President Dick Cheney's claims -- that classified CIA memos show enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding worked -- are wrong.

Former VP Dick Cheney has been a vocal defender of Bush-era interrogation techniques.

Levin, speaking at the Foreign Policy Association's annual dinner in New York on Wednesday, said an investigation by his committee into detainee abuse charges over the use of the techniques -- now deemed torture by the Obama administration -- "gives the lie to Mr. Cheney's claims."
The Michigan Democrat told the crowd that the two CIA documents that Cheney wants released "say nothing about numbers of lives saved, nor do the documents connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of abusive techniques."
"I hope that the documents are declassified, so that people can judge for themselves what is fact, and what is fiction," he added....

Bring It Bush and Cheney

There are a lot of people who want Dick Cheney to crawl back down the hole he emerged from after Obama was elected. I for one think he is the best thing for the Democratic party. I want him and George to keep at it. I want them to scream from the top of rooftops "Yes we waterboarded!! We did it because we believed it would make us safer!"

Here is why: Most Americans view waterboarding as torture. Of the people who don't think it is torture and don't think it is wrong.. well they are going to swallow what Bush, Cheney, Rush and O'Reilly feed them. These are not the people we want to join the Democratic Party. These are die hards who see what they want to see and will not listen to an opposing viewpoint, even if it makes sense and is in their best interest. No. We want the swing voters. We want the moderates. We want people who are willing to listen to both sides of the argument and make their decision based on what they think is right. We want people who believe in democracy and use their vote as a way to shape our countries future. These people will see the rhetoric of the Waterboarding argument for what it is: A chance for Bush and Cheney to avoid being tried as war criminals. A chance for them to keep their 'Legacy' from going down the crapper.

So when I see articles like this, I say BRING IT on fellas. Keep up the good work. The longer you keep arguing that torture is in our best interest, the more moderates you are going to lose from your party.

Then when I see articles like this, my heart sinks. Colin Powel has a good shot of building back the Republican Party. I don't want that. I want the Dems to have a chance at reversing the damage Bush inflicted over the last 8 years.

Good Post

This is a good post from the Daily Dish:

17 May 2009 08:35 pm
Obama's Long War Against Cheneyism?

Yes, there's been a lot to think about and assimilate this past week. With Obama, the surface decisions - the tactical maneuvers - can often obscure the direction beneath. Has he betrayed the gays? Has he back-tracked on torture? What's he doing deferring to Gates and Odierno on the torture and abuse photos? Why's he keeping the military commissions - even with far more protections for defendants? How does he justify continuing to detain prisoners who are completely innocent but may have been radicalized by living in the Gitmo torture-and-detention camp? And why pick general McChrystal - a man whose history of successes in the terror war remains in the shadows but whose mistakes (Camp Nama, the Tillman debacle) are much more public and brand him as a Bush-Cheney figure?
I cannot answer these questions definitively and readers know I embrace the model of letting my own thoughts and those of readers and fellow bloggers map out the discussion - back and forth - in real time. But I'm beginning to think that the cooptation of Huntsman, the retention of Gates, the choice of McChrystal, and the refusal to be baited by Cheney into leading a legal prosecution of past war crimes (with the option of following through later if he is forced to) reveals a cunning we miss at our peril.
Take McChrystal. The Dish has tried to air as much as we can find out about him. What's undeniable is the awe with which many in the military treat him, Petraeus' support and Gates' enthusiasm. I'm deeply troubled by the legacy of prisoner abuse - but I'm also deeply impressed with the man's obvious talent, service, determination, patriotism and ruthlessness. It seems to me that a man like McChrystal is indeed a huge asset, if used ethically and intelligently, in a war to defeat al Qaeda. A man who successfully located and killed a monster like Zarqawi is the kind of man we need to find and kill Osama bin Laden. His entanglement in abuse of prisoners places him in the forefront of all that went wrong under Bush and Cheney - but if Obama has unequivocally ended that abuse and McChrystal is idling in the Pentagon, it seems to me a shrewd choice to show that such ruthlessness, if clearly divorced from betrayal of our core values, is what we need.
What Obama understands is that the war on terror is real, that we need to win both ideologically and militarily, and that we have lost a lot of ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I remain worried that this war has become unwinnable, its goals unclear, its rationale more and more an attempt to prevent the unpreventable. But it remains a fact that Obama campaigned to wage war successfully in Afghanistan and Pakistan - and he cannot exactly withdraw precipitously now. Petraeus, an honorable man whose stance on abuse and torture has long been unequivocally on the side of the angels, backs McChrystal. A combination of better Petraeus-style counter-insurgency strategy with McChrystal special ops' targeting of Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan might be the way to advance. It certainty would be an advance on these drone attacks, which apear to be winning battles and losing the war. I don't know, but I'm perfectly prepared to give the president the benefit of the doubt on this, as I did the last one at this juncture. And I think all of us who supported him last fall should - for the current summer military campaign at the very least.
But look forward and see the potential of Obama's offensive against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Af-Pak. Imagine the political and security impact of actual success in that war. Imagine if a president who eschews torture captures Osama bin Laden, or devastates al Qaeda's infrastructure without succumbing to the pathologies of Cheney. Isn't that in the long run the best way to defang the threat that Cheney and Cheneyism pose to this country's future?
I don't believe we can move forward without accounting for the war crimes of the past. With every passing day, the evidence of real criminality in the past accumulates. But I also understand that so long as Cheney and his ship of macho, torturing fools get to posture as the only ruthless prosecutors of the terror war, they will have a card to play to get back into power. They have no shame and no ethical boundaries. And so the only truly profound way to defeat them and what they represent is to show that a humane ruthlessness is still possible in the fight against al Qaeda - which remains a threat rather than a phantom.
With Gates and Huntsman and Petraeus and McChrystal, Obama is coopting the best of the Bush legacy, while separating it from the callow cynicism of the Cheney-Rove-Kristol axis.
Cheney is taking the torture bait from Obama even as Obama refuses brilliantly to take the terror bait from Cheney. Obama is resisting the red-blue reductionism of the past while forging a new and powerful center. And the more Cheney and Kristol and Limbaugh posture as the future of the GOP, the worse they will do and the more likely it is that more sane and sensible conservatives will eventually fight back.
At least that's one reading of recent developments. I may, of course, be wrong or projecting false hopes onto a new president (which wouldn't be the first time). But if I'm rightly understanding this strategy, and it is followed through with care, it's a very potent one. And if Obama can defuse and defang the Dolschstoss right, if he can outflank them on the terror war, if he can both appeal to the world to look at America in a new light, while also pursuing the covert war on terror with more ruthlessness and focus than Bush - then he will not only destroy the Republican rump, he will help heal this country.
In the end, that's what those of us insistent on the torture issue are saying. We want to undercut and undermine Jihadism as we stymie and forestall terror. And we want to retain our soul as a defender of human rights. Cheney's choice is a false one; and history will damn him for presenting it as true. The path of healing will, of course, not be as simple as some of us once hoped. A polity as polluted as this one will take time to recover, but Obama's continued grace and seriousness are arguably the best option we have.
Know hope.
(Photo: the president yesterday. By Mandel Ngan/Getty.)
Permalink :: Trackback (0) :: Sphere It! ::
var et66870849 = "Obama\'s Long War Against Cheneyism? - The Daily Dish By Andrew Sullivan";
Share This

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c45669e20115708dad54970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Obama's Long War Against Cheneyism?'

Dumb Mistakes

I only think it is fair to call out Obama on his mistakes. Lord knows I called out Bush on most of his.
Biden should not have said this. (Flu gaffe)
Salazar is being a weenie (retaining Bush policy which will kill Polar Bears)
This photo op was just plain (plane) stupid. (Air Force One buzzed NYC for photo)
All of these are stupid mistakes and if these were done by the Bush team I would be all over it saying it is a clear indication that the Administration is out of control. Obama should come out and address the Biden and Photo shot mistakes. He might have told Salazar to retain this policy. I believe we are past the point of avoiding CO2 omissions.

Wooo!!!

We have another Democrat!! Arlen, you rule buddy.

Bring It

There has been a lot of chatter on right wing talk shows about how the Obama administration should not investigate Bush's administration because it would set a bad precedent for future administrations. This is a shit argument. If I was Obama I would say we are investigating WRONG DOINGS. If anyone questions my power and if I abused it, I would expect for them to investigate me also. Democracy only works when we hold everyone accountable. I, like Bush, am not above the law.

I agree with Patrick. Investigate.

The truth always comes out

Hitler tried to hide his gas Chambers, Nixon hid the tapes, Bush and Cheney have tried to hide the truth about torturing prisoners. But now the truth his coming out. No doubt there will be more information coming out about why Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq. The question is, do we hold them accountable? If someone is no longer able to commit crimes, should we go after them? Many feel we need to get past the sins of our fathers and move on. The argument is that the effort to prosecute will cost more than the verdict gains. Let's put it this way: If a known murderer or rapist lived next door to you and he was disabled and not able to continue his crimes should we bring him to justice? Is it worth the expense to our justice system? Does the end justify the means? Many people also believe that because we have so many lawyers in the US we have become more lawsuits than we should have. I don't believe this. If the lawsuit is bogus the judge will throw it out. Judges are trained professionals who take great pride in their work. Like a religious calling, they choose their career because of their belief in a higher standard and ethical code. Although I bet you can find a crooked Judge who could be swayed by a bribe, I believe as a whole they value justice like doctors value life. They believe they have an ethical responsibility to do what is right for society. Sometimes that is throwing out a bogus lawsuit.

I bring this all up because I believe that Bush and Cheney should have a civil lawsuit brought against them for any crimes that they may or may not have committed. I also agree with the Obama administration for saying that their subordinates should not be prosecuted for following orders. Just because the Bush administration does not have the power to continue the abuses and crimes they may or may not have committed is not a strong enough reason to not bring the case to light. Let someone who is a professional judge come to the conclusion as to whether or not it should be tried.

If democracy is the best system, which I believe it to be, we need to show the world that it works. That when people do wrongful acts that they are brought to justice. Even our leaders. If we don't walk the talk we are hypocrits and all of our efforts to bring democracy to the middle east will have been in vane.